Yesterday, on our daily stroll around the neighborhood, Jane and I were crossing the same street that we cross every day. A bunch of cars coming in a distance were quite far enough. Only a few steps short of the opposite curb, I realized that the lead car, well ahead of the others, was about to run me over. Jane yanked me by the sleeve and I had to take the kind of leap that I would have thought well beyond my abilities. In a screeching of tires, the car had stopped a tad too far, right where my feet had been a split second earlier. The driver made some apologetic gesture with his left hand. His right hand was holding a cell telephone to his ear.

Obviously, the man was distracted by his telephone conversation and had paid no attention to Mr. and Mrs. Mudgeon in the crosswalk. Not being as good a leaper as I used to be, I was a little miffed, which I communicated orally to the man. Actually, I was greatly miffed, because I had a similar close call a week before with a monster of an SUV driven by a tiny woman. Where I live, the size of an SUV is inversely proportional to the size of the woman at the wheel. When they are not talking on the telephone, these tiny women like to eat low-fat yogurt while driving.

It seems to be a fact that DWOP---driving while on the phone---is a cause of automobile accidents. Recent university studies show that the conversation diverts the driverâs attention from the traffic, and that having one hand busy holding the telephone impairs oneâs ability to drive. So, some experts recommend the use of "hands-free" telephones. There are two kinds of hands-free devices. One is a simple $29.95 headset attachment, which still requires the driver to punch a button on the telephone to initiate a conversation. The other is really classier and doesnât disturb the driverâs blow-dried hair. Much more expensive and a sure sign of status, it consists of a computer with microphone and loudspeaker hidden in the dashboard that dials on voice command. For example, after pushing a button on the steering wheel, the driver says "call home," and the computer calls home. The computer also tells the driver about incoming calls, and all thatâs needed to start a conversation is a little push of a button on the steering wheel.

Elmo, who works for QuidComp on a project of digital voice recognition, tells me that current devices are not as good as one would like them to be. First, you have to train the contraption to get used to your voice and pronunciation, and that may take time. For a while, it wonât understand what you say or misinterpret it. Now, assume that the system is properly trained, and you tell it to "call Millie." That sounds simple enough, and Millie (say) is your secretary, but you have a cold. So, the computer calls your son Billy. After another try, it calls the instructor of the belly-dancing class that your wife takes in the morning. So, you keep trying, and keep trying, until some California Highway Patrol officer pulls you over for driving erratically. Of course, itâs hard not to drive erratically while pounding on the steering wheel with two fists and screaming four-letter words at the frigging computer. Because your blood pressure runs high, your face is red, and your explanations are incoherent, the CHP officer makes you walk a straight line, stand on one leg, touch your nose with your eyes closed, and do other such silly things. Meanwhile, people of your department who are driving by on their way to the office slow down to take a good look at your antics. There goes your promotion.

Yet, do-gooders insist that "hands-free" telephones are safer and call for a law banning the use of the regular sort in cars. As usual, they have fudged statistics proving that we are facing a grave crisis, and that "the children" are especially at risk. As politicians have joined the fray, we must be prepared to see victims of evil telephones offering heart-rending testimonies before the senate. Companies that make $29.95 headsets support the campaign.

California being California, it is highly probable that sooner or later a law will make the use of headsets mandatory in cars. I say that because the political power is in the hands of Democrats, who possess a unique talent for protecting their stupid constituents against themselves.

Being a retired handyman, I know something about the unintended consequences of righteous intentions, and I have been thinking about some likely effects of the headset law. It does not take much imagination to foresee that the tiny woman at the wheel of a 7,000-lb. SUV will seize the opportunity to have a telephone conversation and eat low-fat yogurt at the same time on her way to the belly-dancing class. She also will be pulled over by a CHP officer for driving erratically. Could one drive safely while trying to remove the glob of yogurt that clogs the microphone? Now, the companies that make headset should not feel so smug. They will be sued by a man who crashed his car into a tree and got the microphone stem driven up his nose into his brain. During the trial, the man will emotionally recount for the benefit of the jury how he could hear his brain through the headset shortly before falling into a deep coma. That will get him a few billions of dollars for his pain and suffering. The lawyers will then explain that such damages are not extravagant. On the contrary, they are the only effective means to make a whole industry more sensitive to the safety of its customers. The headset makers will then declare bankruptcy, and people will have to buy shoddier headsets in Tahiti.

Now, if the do-gooders were serious about their cause, they should call for a law that forbids the driver of a car from doing anything other than driving. Unfortunately, many devices keep the driver busy with other tasks. Let the law forbid cup holders, which make the driver drink coffee or soda. Let it also forbid telephone, radio, and cassette or disk player. And what about this distracting instrument panel with too many dials? Why not put the engine temperature gauge on the hood in the place of this useless Buick or Daimler symbol so that it can be seen without missing a look at the road? My neighbor Manny, who fought at Okinawa, is old enough to remember cars like this. They were called "Model T."

The absurdity of blaming objects for human irresponsibility is not new. It is but one product of the revolution preached by "progressives" and behavioral pseudoscientists, which aims to re-engineer society to suit oafs and misfits, the preferred constituency of power-hungry politicians. Of course, its gradualism successfully taps into the general population's credulity, generosity, and inertia. It does not matter that oafs and misfits are but a tiny fraction of a population normally distributed---the bell curve---and that our social order works best to everyone's advantage when it is based on the norm and not the exception. But the revolution takes care of that too by re-engineering education as well. It is no accident that our schools produce more and more oafs and misfits. We are living in interesting times, but more interesting times may still be ahead.